I’ll second what Snap said on the snatch-squat-hold.
Virtual meet sounds like a fun community building activity. I’d participate if i could - might be a little complicated at my crap gym but I’d give it a try.
And lifting shirtless is always a bonus to your fellow womenz readers - very grateful. 
[quote]nlmain wrote:
I’ll second what Snap said on the snatch-squat-hold.
Virtual meet sounds like a fun community building activity. I’d participate if i could - might be a little complicated at my crap gym but I’d give it a try.
And lifting shirtless is always a bonus to your fellow womenz readers - very grateful.
[/quote]
I know that when women lift shirtless, it always gives me a lift and stiffens my resolve.
New virtual meet attire rule - “For the purposes of clarity and accurately judging a lift, all competitors must lift shirtless.”
[quote]JoeGood wrote:
also, online calculator.
http://www.marylandpowerlifting.com/wilks.asp[/quote]
Thanks for that calculator Joe, very useful, I’ve added that to my favourites.
And I would definitely be up for some online competition.
I lift shirtless all the time.
So wilkes is the true strength-to-weight ratio measure. Interesting.
[quote]kpsnap wrote:
I lift shirtless all the time.
So wilkes is the true strength-to-weight ratio measure. Interesting. [/quote]
I can only imagine how long it took Wilkes to ferret out a 5th degree polynomial equation from all the plotted points on whatever graph he had.
Don’t think you were expecting an answer but with polynomial regression, for a 5th degree polynomial, you only need to solve a 7x7 matrix equation.
[quote]Carl Darby wrote:
Don’t think you were expecting an answer but with polynomial regression, for a 5th degree polynomial, you only need to solve a 7x7 matrix equation.[/quote]
Damn you! Now I’m off surveying polynomials and matrices on the web. This particular fusion wasn’t covered in my math education at all.
I wish I had a job so I couldn’t get side-tracked like this…
In that case, I better correct this before you find out otherwise. Since you only need 6 coefficients for that 5th degree polynomial, it only needs to be 6x6. I should think longer before I post sometimes.
Carl: Are you a calculus teacher?
I don’t really think there is such a thing as a Wilkes equation. I think the meet directors make up the numbers so that their favorite gets awarded “best lifter.”
My grade in calculus was the absolute lowest grade I ever received in college. I hear nothing but, “blah, blah, blah”.
2011-1-13
Push Press from the rack
bar x some
95x5
115x3
135x3
155x3
175x3
192.5 1x10 sets
Front Squat
135x3,3
165x3
195x3
225x2
245 1x10 sets
Snatch, Squat and Hold
95 x 10sec
105 x 10sec
115 x 10sec
125 x 10sec
135 x 10 sec (PR + 10lbs)
PP: Started out not sure if I would complete more than 3 sets. Finished thinking I could do them all day.
FS: Getting a better setup on these. Elbows high, shoulders up, chest out and knees wide, look up. Tried a belt on the first three sets, but wasn’t getting anything out of it so I ditched it. Shortened the rest times on the last 5 sets.
Holds: The last set today was easier than last time I did them @125. Setting my shoulders better to hold the weight longer.
Note to self: Every time I quit grumbling and get happy while training, the whole session just starts flowing. Work on that.
Bar is sitting back further and further. Looks good. I don’t get anything from a belt on front squats either.
Sorry in advance DCA, but snapper, yes sometimes I am a Calculus teacher.
[quote]Carl Darby wrote:
In that case, I better correct this before you find out otherwise. Since you only need 6 coefficients for that 5th degree polynomial, it only needs to be 6x6. I should think longer before I post sometimes.[/quote]
Dat be dam’ uber-nerdigeek. I’m a math major and I should know this stuff.
So it’s matrixification of summations of the expoentiations of the dataset using the x-inputs and the y outputs coupled with Gaussian-Jordan elimination?
I googled it of course.
And that may be too many prepositional phrases…
Here’s some fun:
Jon North, Zach Krych, Rob Adell, and Phill Sabatini in competition last month:
[quote]DaCharmingAlbino wrote:
[quote]Carl Darby wrote:
In that case, I better correct this before you find out otherwise. Since you only need 6 coefficients for that 5th degree polynomial, it only needs to be 6x6. I should think longer before I post sometimes.[/quote]
Dat be dam’ uber-nerdigeek. I’m a math major and I should know this stuff.
So it’s matrixification of summations of the expoentiations of the dataset using the x-inputs and the y outputs coupled with Gaussian-Jordan elimination?
I googled it of course.
And that may be too many prepositional phrases…
[/quote]
Yes, although in practice other matrix methods are used to solve the equation that are more accurate and quicker.
DCA and Carl, You are doing untold damage to our “meathead” image with all your clever talk.
loved the vid DCA - got me cheering and cringing the whole time
[quote]nlmain wrote:
loved the vid DCA - got me cheering and cringing the whole time :)[/quote]
Thanks Frenchie. 10 more pounds goes on the bar next time.
There’s nothing sexier than an intelligent man.
So who’s up for a 35+ video meet?